The High Court · 2025

Represented by Sri Ch. Venkat Narayana. The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLI SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C. M.A.No.362 2020 JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against women -*_cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam (hereinafter referred to as 'learned. Tribunall in M.v.o.P.No.368 of 2ols, dated lr.ol.2o2o, seeking compensation of Rs.4,O0,0OO/- for the injuries allegedly received by the petitioner in an accident that occurred on 2O.03.2OI2.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner went to Vijayawada along with his friends and was proceeding on foot towards Gollapudi bus stop and when he reached Narayana College, Gollapudi, the driver of the Maruthi car bearing No. AP-16-UH-T/R OTOT driven his car at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner due to which the petitioner sustained injury, such as contusion right temporal region, hernatorna and multiple injuries atl over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Seshai Super 2 !TI{R.J IACMA t{o.362 of 2O2O Specialist Hos,pital, Khammam where he was treated as inpatient for 15 days.

3. Basing on the complaint, the Police Vijayawada-l Town registered the case in Orime No. 205 oI 2012 under Section 338 of IPC against driver of the car. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 27 ye:rrs and was hale and healthy earning Rs.15,O0O/- per month by wt>rking as driver of the auto. Due to the said accident, peiitioner suiiered mentai agony anci uni:ear'able ireadache foi 'which the petitioner lost his partial memory, as such claimed an amount oi Rs.4,00,0OO l-.

4. Respondent No.1 lemaingd ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. Respondent No.2-Bajaj" Allianz General Insuratlce Company Limited liled counter-affidavit and denied the income of the peritioner and also nature of the accident and involvement of the crime vehicle and contended tlrat the crime vehicle was handed over by the owner of the vehicle to r-he driver who was not holing vatid driving licence. Respondent No.2 further contended that Insurance company is not liable to pay' compensation as compensation which is claimed by the \ 3 rIrR.J IACMA lto.362 of 2O2O claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the findings, the learned tribunal has framed the following issues for the consideration:

1. uthether the arcident had occttrred due to rash and negligent driuing of mr bearing No.AP-16-UH T/ R 0907, by its driuer ?

2. Whetlrcr the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount andfrom whtch of the respondents ?

3. To wlwt relief ?

6. After considering the contention and rival contention - and documentary evidence and eviderrce placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal finds that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the offending car bearing No. AP- 16-UH T/R-0907. As far as compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal having considered the income and the injuries sustained by the petitioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for Rs. 46,500 /- along with interest @ 7 .5 per annum.

7. Being unsati'sfied with the said quantum of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the claimant contending that the learned Tribunal did not consider the 4 IITltR.J IACMA lYo.362 of 2O2O injuries in l.he proper wa, and also the learned rribunal did not consider me'lical bills i.e., Ex.AS, A8, A9 and also Ex.All, i.e, Lab report. Ttre petitionei has incurred an amount of Rs.40,941 towards medical expenses but the Tribunal miserably failed to consider 1.he injuries sustained and medicat expenses spent by the petitioner and granted meager compensation. 8. Learnerl counsel for the petitioner further submitted that learned Tribunal did not consider the perrnanent disability of the petitioner for assessing the compensation and the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amotrnt of Rs.15,000/- under the head of 'pain and sufferance' and Rs.S,ooO/- under the head of 'transportation, and Rs. 3,oo0/- under the he:ad of 'Extra Nourishment, and in all granted compensation an amount of Rs.46,500/- and prayed this.Court to enhanced the said compensation amount granted by the learned rribunal.

9. Admitt':dly, the respondents have not preferred appeal or cross appeal, as such the compensation awarded and the liabililv imposed on the respond,ents may be deemed. to be satisfied with the award and that there is no <lispute regarding the accident and involvement of the crime offending vehicle and. also..tfrat t[e age -4n_d occupation and income of the petition,lr, and so also there is no dispute regarding the injuries h*- 5 rtrR.J IACMA IIo.362 of 2O2O sustained by the petitioner. The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is that: 'i) Whetlrcr the Tribunal had rightly consider tlrc daim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicl.e Rules 1989 and awarded just compensation. iil Wruther the petitioner is entitled for enlnnced compensation? If so, to uhnt ertent?

10. Heard, Srl .l\Icaeshwqr Ro;o Repakula,, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and Sri Ch.Venkof Naraganc representing Sri Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. None appears for respondent No.1. Point No.l & 2 1 1. Heard, the contention and rival contention of both the parties, admittedly the PW.2-Doctor who treated the petitioner deposed before the Tribunal that the petitioner was admitted into their hospital for the injutries sustained in the road traffic accident. At the time of admission, the petitiot St was shifted to Radiologr department and CT Scan of brain )- was operated and on perusal of CT Scan of the brain shows that there was right temporal region, hematoma and multiple injures all over the body and it is contended that the said injury was grievous in nature. It 6 NITR.J MACMA Ito.362 of 2O2O ' is also oot b,3€o denied that the petitioner underwent surgery in respect of the injuries sustained and the treatment given to him for the said injuries caus;ed in the accident

12. [t is contended that the petitioner was earning Rs. 20,00o/- per month, but 1-he learned Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner @ Rs-10,000 /- per month and awarded an amount of Rs.2o,0o0/- for two month r-6q7a1ds 'loss of earnings', however the petitioner has not filed any doc'ument with regard to income of the petitioner. The Honble Supreme ccurt in Lqtha wadhuta as. state of Bl}.o,rr, *ryhere it is stated that ln the absence of such documentar5r proof with regard to income of the petitioner and where there is no proof of income and earnings, ttte income carl be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the grou-nd realities by the Courts, hence the compensation is granted by the Tritlunal in so far as taking the income of the petitioner @ Rs. iO,ooo/- per month, which appear to be reasonable and considering r-hg ground realities. I 1 2001(8) SCC 197 7 rnR.J MACMA lto.362 df 2O2O

13. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- towards 'extra nourishment' which appears to be meager and this Court enhanced the same from Rs.3,OOO /- to Rs.5,000/-.

14. As f,ar as medical bills are concerned, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that though petitioner is claiming an amount of Rs.1,00,0OO/- towards Medical expenses, but the Tribunal did not consider medical bills on the ground that they are created for the purpose of present case and the petitioner did not choose to confront the medical bitls to PW.2-Doctor, who treated the petitioner and also not examined the person who issued the medical bilts. Therefore, the Tribunal granted. Rs.3,227 /- in a1l under the head of 'medical expenses'. Considering the d.iscussions and the finding given by the learned Tribunal, this court do not see any grounds to interfere with the f,rndings given by the learned Tribunal.

15. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,O0O/- towards 'pain and sufferance' for two grievous injuries and as per PW.2 statement, the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature' Having accepted the same by the Tribunal that the petitioner having suffered two grievous injuries, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded 8 MTR.J 4AcllA lto.352 of 2O2o Rs'50,00o/- for two injuries i.e., Rs.25,0oo/- each injury, as such this Court is of r:he opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensaticn under the head of 'pain and suffering;; a11 additional amount of Rs. 3s,ooo/- is awarded in respect of pain and s,{ferance. 16' on overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the aforesaid cited decision. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancemei:t of compensation as mociiireci ancl recalculated as above and given in the table belorv for easy reference Head to hos Trans Extre t Nouri hmen t Med ical Expenses P.ain end Sufterance Loss of earnings during treatment Total R,rund off to Amount arrived at by the Tribunal Amount arrived at by this Court Rs.5, OOO / - Rs Rs.3227 /- Rs.15,000/- Rs.20,OOO/- Rs.46,227 /- Rs.5,OQO/- Rs.3227 / - ns.'soP@f=- Rs.2OOoO/ Rs,.8,3,2271- L7 ' Accordingly, the M-A.C.M.A is a[owed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.46,5oo/- to Rs.g3,22zl- (Rupees Eighty Three Thousand a:nd Two Hundred and tbenty T\ro oirryl with the interest of 7.5%o per annum on the enhanced amount from t!e.{ate of petition till the date of realisation. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit \-. i - 9 IUTR.J llACfA Xo.362 of2O2O the said compensation €rmount together with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. However, libert5r is granted to respondent No.2 to initiate proceeding for recovery of *re apportioned amount from the respondent No.l-owner of the offending vehicle as held by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

18. As a sequel, misceflaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed SD/.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I/TRUE COPY,, SECTION OFFICER for Fast To, 1 2 3. 4. Two CD CoPies GE/PSL 'VL- HIGH COURT DATED:231A712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3i62 of 2O2O 'pr";'** sTAtt o L) t 1 Ir\\ 1q1. .k * PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6*d'[ Xo, I I I I I t t I I I I I i I t i : [ 3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Between: Reddymalla Srinu, S/o. Venkanna, Age. 32 years, Occ. Owner-cum-Driver of Auto, N/o. Mannegudem Mllage, presently residing at M.Venkatayapalem Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District. ...APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITION ER AND

1. D. Sujatha and another, Wo. Sathish, Aged. Major, Occ. Owner of Car bearing No. AP 16 UH T/R 0907, R/o. H.No. 11-7, Penamaluru (V and M), Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. BajajAllianz General lnsurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Pune through local Branch Manager, Wyra Road, Khammam. ...RESPONDENTSMESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 1710112020 passed in MVOP No. 368 of 2O15 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women - cum - Vlll Additional District Judge, Khammam This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRI NAGESWARA RAO REPAKULA, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for for Respondent No.1 and SRI CH. VENKAT NARAYANA representing SRI VENKATA RAMI REDDY, Advocate appeared for Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed.

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.46,500/- to Rs.83,2:271- (Rupees Eighty Three Thousand and Two Hundred and Twenty 5ry€l\ nrc only) with the interest ol7.5o/o per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That thr: rssp..6..t No.2 be and is hereby directed to deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from the date of receipt {f a copy of this judgment.

4. That or such deposit the respondent No.2, the petitioner be and is hereby permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety.

5. That th,3 respondent No.2 is hereby granted liberty to initiate proceeding for recovery of the apportioned amount from the respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle as held by the Tribunal.

6. That thr:re shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. llTrueCopyll To SD/-M.OSMAN ALIBAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Special ns Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women - cum - Vlll Additional District Judge, Khammam.

2. Two CD Copies. GEIPSL Kd- \ \ HIGH COUR]I DATED:23101'12025 DECREE MACMA.No.:362 ot ZA2A PARTLY ALI-OWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \^ .rPd -&*